Early last Spring, I began to read and hear about a new movie that was being produced about the life of Francis Marion, the “Swamp Fox” of Revolutionary War days.  I became very interested in this film because of my interest in American history and the fact that the producers of the film claimed that they had worked closely with the Smithsonian Institute to be as historically accurate as they could possibly get.  I was skeptical that Hollywood could put out anything that was really accurate, but was hopeful that they could.

An accurate film about Francis Marion would be a God send.  He is almost totally an unknown in the 21st century, but that has not always been the case as evidenced by the number of times his name was used in naming the new country.  There are no less than 29 cities and towns and 17 counties named after Marion. If you happened to be in Marion, Iowa and September 7-10 of this year, you could have attended the Swamp Fox Festival.  Disney did a series on the Swamp Fox back in the 1950’s that starred Leslie Nielson and there is a Francis Marion University with about 4000 students in South Carolina.

For those who do not know anything about Francis Marion, he was a descendant of French protestants (Huguenots) and so suffering at the hands of a state church was something he was probably taught well from a child. Marion gained his first military experience fighting against the Cherokee Indians in 1759. Then, as a member of the South Carolina Provincial Congress (1775), he was commissioned a captain.  After the surrender of Gen. Benjamin Lincoln to the British at Charleston, S.C. (1780), he slipped away to the swamps, gathered together a band of guerrillas, and began leading bold raids against British supply trains, and patrols.. Marion and his militia often defeated larger bodies of British troops by the surprise and rapidity of their movement over swampy terrain. He received the thanks of Congress for a daring rescue of Americans surrounded by the British at Parkers Ferry, S.C. (August 1781). He was then appointed a brigadier general, and after the war he served in the senate of South Carolina (1782-90).

And then, as the film was being released, it was a pleasure to hear the “politically correct” crowd begin to pitch the proverbial conniption fit over it.  When the liberals began to howl, I figured it could not be all bad.  I guess I could be called a reactionary, but if Bill Clinton is for it, I’m against it, if Dan Rather says it, I don’t believe it and if Jane Fonda is in it, I don’t watch it.  When the modern day liberals and their fellow travelers begin to yelp, I take notice of what is causing the ruckus.  Every once in a while, even Hollywood, with all of it’s corruption and perversion, comes out with a film that is worth watching.  Could this be one?

When the movie was released, I began to be inundated with questions about it, and frankly, I could not answer them because I had not seen the movie.  In time, I began to feel torn between my obligation to understand “the times” (1Chronicles 12:32) and my resolution not to attend commercial movie theatres.  I finally called my 90 year old father who is still pastoring in Arizona and explained to him my dilemma and he counseled me that I needed to go see the movie, so I did.

I had not been to a commercial movie theatre since my Senior English Literature class at Mingus Union High School in Jerome, Arizona went to Phoenix to see Camelot.  Needless to say, a lot had changed in the past 32 years.  For one thing there is a rating system for movies now that didn’t exist then.  In those days, there were two things that could be said, almost universally about movies.  First, at least by today’s standards, they were all clean and secondly, Christians didn’t go to the movies.  It is a curious thing to me that the more rotten and filthy movies become, the more Christians feel obligated to attend.  But that is a different sermon.

Then the rating system itself presented an interesting and curious insight into the days in which we live.  The movie I was going to see was about a Christian patriot, fighting for liberty.  It was rated “R” which I understand is one step up from “not fit for man or beast.”  At the same theatre there was a movie about witchcraft, demons, the occult and eastern religions and it was rated “G,” a children’s movie.  Go figure.

The film turned out to be very inaccurate.  For example, the movie hero, Benjamin Martin was the father of 7 children, while, to the best of my ability, I have only found Francis Marion getting married once and that after the war to a woman named Mary Videau.

In fairness, according to the official Sony Pictures web site, “Martin is a composite of various Patriots: Colonel Daniel Morgan, who fought the brutal Colonel Banastre Tarleton and Lord General Charles Cornwallis at the Battle of Cowpens; Francis Marion, the "Swamp Fox," a guerrilla fighter from South Carolina’s wetlands; Elijah Clark; Thomas Sumter; and Andrew Pickens, all renowned freedom fighters.”   In other words, any historical inaccuracies are about Marion are because it really is not Marion.

Probably the biggest disappointment was to find out that the Grand Finale, the battle to the death between Benjamin Martin and Colonel Tavington only partially happened. Colonel William Tavington, was a character suggested by Colonel Banastre Tarleton, a British officer serving under Cornwallis.  Tartleton was nicknamed "Bloody Ban the Butcher," for his policy of killing surrendering troops.  This practice became known as "Tarleton’s Quarter."  It was William Washington who was a cousin to George Washington, who, as the battle of Cowpens was winding down, chased down Tarleton for hand to hand combat. Washington was unsuccessful in his combat with Tarleton, and was lucky to escape with his life.

Tarleton not only was not killed at Cowpens, but fought at the battle of Guilford Courthouse, and later retreated into Virginia and was active in the Yorktown campaign. He returned to England and served in Parliament and wrote A History of the Campaigns of 1780 and 1781 in the Southern Provinces of North America.

And then, for all of the squealing and hollering the politically correct bunch did, this film was full of political correct, historical inaccuracies.  One of the most stirring speeches in the movie was delivered by a young woman in Church.  Now the speech was a dandy, but the idea that any woman, especially a girl, would have the opportunity to speak in a colonial church is ludicrous.  It made great theatre but poor history.

An area that one would not expect Hollywood to even know about, much less understand, is the religious backgrounds of the militias that fought at King’s Mountain, Cowpens, Guilford Courthouse and the other southern battles.  Most of these men were descendants of Huguenots, Scottish Covenanters, Moravians, and other groups who had suffered at the hands of the State Church in Europe.  I thought it was quite ironic that the man who played the part of Marion, the descendant of the Huguenots, was a Roman Catholic.

Slavery was an issue that had to be dealt with and overall, it treated the relationship of slave to master with some accuracy.   Marion’s militia actually was approximately 20% Black.  It failed in one very important point and that being it failed to show that slavery was not a racial issue in that day.  One of the minor story lines that weaves through the movie concerns a slave fighting, at first because he had been ordered to do so in the place of his elderly master and later because of an order promising any slave his freedom if he would fight for a period of time.  Absolutely no mention is made of the fact that the primary purpose for such an order was to encourage white slaves, indentures and others, to fight for their freedom.

And then there was a theme that ran through the movie that Martin’s wife, who supposedly had died some time before, was alive and her children could see her in the North Star.  This was a movie about a time when the Great Awakening had brought revival up and down the colonies.  A little girl might have been taught to look forward to seeing her mother in heaven, but not in some star.

In my opinion however, the most deadly of all of the politically correct misconceptions that this movie led to was the idea that the leaders of the war fought for revenge and not for principle.  Martin begins the movie with a speech in which he flatly refuses to act on principle, and then does not get involved until they have killed one son and are preparing to kill another.  This is an issue of major importance because to the politically correct crowd, there is no such thing as a principle important enough to die for.  In a day run by dialog and consensus, there is just no room for principle, even in an historical movie.

With all of that said, what about the movie itself?

There were several things that made the movie well worth the time to watch.  At the age of 50 and with eight children, I could really empathize with the characters of the movie as they dealt with the losses to the family.   In terms of showing what freedom means to the family, it was one of the best movies I had ever seen.

It did an excellent job of showing what our liberty cost our fathers.  It would be difficult for anyone to see this film and not be challenged concerning the price of our liberty.

It did a good job of showing the desperate nature of the War in the South.  Having had over 200 years pass since the war, it is easy to think of it as an easy war.  You do not think that after watching this movie.

But the thing I liked the best was the fact that we whipped the British and we were no longer under the tyranny of the Crown or of Parliament.  Any film that shows that is a good film.